Marty_d Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 In terms of medical effectiveness it may as well be. I just added it as a light-hearted reminder that even the West maintains outmoded and totally useless belief systems (as well as religion).
rankamateur Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 The great thing about homa-therapy and acupuncture, and probably homeopathy, but I haven't used it, is that you don't have to believe in it to make it work for you. All you need to do is try it. A lot of out-dated western religions would find they became relevant to a lot more people, even a sustainable amount of people, if unquestioning child-like belief was not a cast in stone pre-requisite.
Marty_d Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 The great thing about homa-therapy and acupuncture, and probably homeopathy, but I haven't used it, is that you don't have to believe in it to make it work for you. All you need to do is try it. A lot of out-dated western religions would find they became relevant to a lot more people, even a sustainable amount of people, if unquestioning child-like belief was not a cast in stone pre-requisite. The problem with homoeopathy is that the concentration of active ingredient is so low that it has no chance of working. The best thing that can be said about it is it won't do you any harm, UNLESS you use it in place of an actual cure. In fact I'd probably disagree with you a bit and say you DO have to believe in it to make it work, because the placebo effect is the only way it possibly could work.
winsor68 Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 They were talking about the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone on the radio this evening. Apparently one of the reasons they can't get the disease under control is because communities don't follow the rules about disposing of dead bodies; instead, they secretly wash them and bury them. And contract ebola from them.Why do they do this? Religion. I think you confuse Religion with Customs and Culture. Religion is just a very simple form of education.
Marty_d Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 I think you confuse Religion with Customs and Culture. Religion is just a very simple form of education. As per #2023 I was quoting the reporter, you may be right in that it's a custom instead of their religion, I don't know. In either case it's insanity. Religion could be construed as simple education, but in many ways it's the antithesis of it. Education involves learning how to learn and think critically. Religion demands unthinking and unquestioning adherence to established dogma.
rankamateur Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 The problem with homoeopathy is that the concentration of active ingredient is so low that it has no chance of working. The best thing that can be said about it is it won't do you any harm, UNLESS you use it in place of an actual cure. In fact I'd probably disagree with you a bit and say you DO have to believe in it to make it work, because the placebo effect is the only way it possibly could work. It is a bit like the "peppering" method of weed control used hundreds of years ago before everyone had to have a chemical for everything they did. The seeds of the target plant are burned and the ashes of the seeds are spread around the field. Not all the field has to be covered with ash, even treating the perimeter is said to work too. So the concentration of active ingredient is insignificant if the ingredient is very potent.
Marty_d Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 It is a bit like the "peppering" method of weed control used hundreds of years ago before everyone had to have a chemical for everything they did. The seeds of the target plant are burned and the ashes of the seeds are spread around the field. Not all the field has to be covered with ash, even treating the perimeter is said to work too. So the concentration of active ingredient is insignificant if the ingredient is very potent. Is there any hard data on the effectiveness of this method? Trials?
rankamateur Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 People who farm Certified Organic or Certified Biodynamic don't have any choice but to treat problem weeds this way. I have spoken to growers who have used this method very successfully. Most use it sparingly for problem weed outbreaks rather than annually as normal practice. http://www.downtoearth.ph/peppering-as-a-method-of-pest-control/ shows that weeds , snails, slugs or rodents can all be treated using variations of the method. I have been a chemical farmer for so long now that I personally am so sensitised to chemicals that I don't have a choice but use these types of methods now. One of my daughters at 21 yrs of age was equally sensitised, got enough fumes off a mob of cattle treated two hours earlier, to cause her a full blown reaction.
Marty_d Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Call me an old cynic, but until the benefit is quantified I have difficulty accepting the method. I can accept that there are practices that provide a benefit even though we don't yet know how they actually work, but for me I'd like to see the data. Aren't there other organic methods of weed control? For the future robotics might be the answer, there's a solar-powered "Ladybug" machine which trundles along identifying and destroying weeds.
bexrbetter Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Not sure why people bag out acupuncture, it works, both the older method and especially modern using pulsating electrical current between the needles. Of course, like many professions, it comes down to the operator, some of them are real pricks.
rankamateur Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 Not sure why people bag out acupuncture, It even works on sceptics like me, and it wasn't a fluke because it has worked again since then, but that time it didn't have to prove anything to me that time.
Marty_d Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 like many professions, it comes down to the operator, some of them are real pricks. Such as tattoo artists and sometimes nurses. Anaesthesiologists are definitely known for it. Gigolos probably too, and some catholic priests.
turboplanner Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Probably driven to distraction by this thread, I visited an Op Shop, and found a Readers Digest book called "Great Lives Great Deeds". It's around 600 pages and covers about 70 of the world's most amazing people from Sir Charles Kingsford Smith to Voltaire to Socrates to Leonardo Da Vinci to Strauss to Ferdinand Magellan etc. Each person gets a very short biography, and two of the most outstanding are on Winston Churchill, where we see previously untold information and Napoleon Bonapart whose major activities came AFTER he escaped from prison. Sir Isaac Newton is also featured. The most we ever seemed to be taught about him were Newtons Laws. "Principia", written in Latin, was his most stunning work, and the book says that "for two centuries it was the major guide to the world's scientific thought" Then there is this little gem of information from such a brilliant brain: "He showed how to determine the mass of the Sun and the planets. He proved that the gravitational force of the moon and the sun causes tides in the oceans of the earth, that sping tides occur when moon and sun are pulling together, neap tides when the forces are opposed. Such a wonderful uniformity as he found in the planetary system must, Newton said, 'be allowed the effect of choice' by a Supreme Creator.
Pearo Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 P "He showed how to determine the mass of the Sun and the planets. He proved that the gravitational force of the moon and the sun causes tides in the oceans of the earth, that sping tides occur when moon and sun are pulling together, neap tides when the forces are opposed. Such a wonderful uniformity as he found in the planetary system must, Newton said, 'be allowed the effect of choice' by a Supreme Creator. Dont worry, I know plenty of very smart folk who are religious. One fellow even turned his back on science because it conflicted with his religion. These days though, we have explanations for most things, and as we ask questions and discover more we also discover that there is no logical reason for a god or gods. On the contrary, we can actually show that if indeed life and the universe was designed by a creator, then that creator was pretty stupid because there is some really, really dumb designs out there.
Marty_d Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Such a wonderful uniformity as he found in the planetary system must, Newton said, 'be allowed the effect of choice' by a Supreme Creator. ...Or the result of coalescence of matter and the effects of gravity over 13.8 billion years. Let's face it if you were a "Supreme Creator" you wouldn't just stick with spherical planets, you'd make a few cubes and pyramid-shaped ones just to blow the native's mind.
turboplanner Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I see the athesists are telling God what he should have done now.
octave Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 "He showed how to determine the mass of the Sun and the planets. He proved that the gravitational force of the moon and the sun causes tides in the oceans of the earth, that sping tides occur when moon and sun are pulling together, neap tides when the forces are opposed. Such a wonderful uniformity as he found in the planetary system must, Newton said, 'be allowed the effect of choice' by a Supreme Creator. There is no doubt that Isaac Newton was one of the greatest scientists ever and the Principia Mathematica is one of the foundations of modern science. This does not mean that his every pronouncement is sound. Newton also believed in the occult. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies
Pearo Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I see the athesists are telling God what he should have done now. I think you misunderstand what the word atheist means.
bexrbetter Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I see the athesists are telling God what he should have done now. Well I've seen the work of both, eg; one gives 5 year olds leukemia and one tries to cure/prevent leukemia, so guess who's side I'm on. And based on that, maybe a few more 'Followers' should also be telling "God" how to do things rather than just blindly accepting what is, after all, ultimate power ultimately corrupts. Just picture it; God's a bit angry (as usual), "Hmm not enough offerings for me this week, I know, I'll give cute little Mary Ann Jones on Stanley St leukemia, that'll up the prayer rate for the month ....
Marty_d Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I see the athesists are telling God what he should have done now. Well, if he objects, he could always post on here and say so. Surely an omnipotent omniscient being could do that. (Which smartass is going to choose the username "God"...)
bexrbetter Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 (Which smartass is going to choose the username "God"...) Oh I already tried for a funny a few months ago, don't know if a mod picked it up or an auto Bot does it but I didn't get to make the post within minutes!
Marty_d Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Strangely enough Bex, you were the smartass I was thinking of when I wrote that...
rgmwa Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Oh I already tried for a funny a few months ago, don't know if a mod picked it up or an auto Bot does it but I didn't get to make the post within minutes! Wouldn't have worked anyway. We would have known it was you, Bex. rgmwa
bexrbetter Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Wouldn't have worked anyway. We would have known it was you, Bex. rgmwa Yup, I have often been mistaken for a God. - or Brad Pitt.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now